{"id":7338,"date":"2013-11-26T10:31:18","date_gmt":"2013-11-26T05:01:18","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=7338"},"modified":"2013-11-26T10:54:53","modified_gmt":"2013-11-26T05:24:53","slug":"dattani-co-vs-ito-gujarat-high-court-itat-duty-bound-to-deal-with-all-judgements-cited-during-hearing-of-appeal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/dattani-co-vs-ito-gujarat-high-court-itat-duty-bound-to-deal-with-all-judgements-cited-during-hearing-of-appeal\/","title":{"rendered":"Dattani & Co vs. ITO (Gujarat High Court)"},"content":{"rendered":"\n\n
Click here to download the judgement (Dattani_cited_judgements.pdf) <\/strong> <\/a><\/p><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n


\nITAT duty-bound to deal with all judgements cited during hearing of appeal<\/strong><\/p>\n

The assessee filed an appeal against an addition for alleged bogus purchases\/sales which was dismissed by the Tribunal. The assessee filed an appeal before the High Court claiming that he had relied on the judgement in CIT vs. President Industries 258 ITR 654 in the verbal and written submissions and that the Tribunal had not considered it. HELD by the High Court remanding the case to the Tribunal for fresh consideration:<\/p>\n

Whenever any decision has been relied upon and\/or cited by the assessee and\/or any party, the authority\/tribunal is bound to consider and\/or deal with the same and opine whether in the facts and circumstances of the particular case, the same will be applicable or not. In the instant case, the Tribunal has failed to consider and\/or deal with the aforesaid decision cited and relied upon by the assessee. Under the circumstances, all these appeals are required to be remanded to the Tribunal to consider the addition made by the AO towards alleged bogus purchases\/sales and to take appropriate decision in accordance with law and on merits and after considering the decision of this Court in the case of CIT vs. President Industries 258 ITR 654.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

See also Naresh K. Pahuja<\/a><\/strong> 224 CTR 284 (Bom), Inventure Growth<\/a><\/strong> 324 ITR 319 (Bom) (non cited judgements should not be referred to<\/em>) & Shivsagar Veg. Restaurant<\/a><\/strong> (Bom). Contrast with Visvas Promoters<\/a><\/strong> 323 ITR 114 (Mad) & Geofin Investment<\/a><\/strong> 30 taxmann.com 73. See also Guidelines to Hon’ble Members of ITAT for drafting orders<\/a><\/strong><\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"


\nITAT duty-bound to deal with all judgements cited during hearing<\/strong><\/p>\n

Whenever any decision has been relied upon and\/or cited by the assessee and\/or any party, the authority\/tribunal is bound to consider and\/or deal with the same and opine whether in the facts and circumstances of the particular case, the same will be applicable or not. In the instant case, the Tribunal has failed to consider and\/or deal with the aforesaid decision cited and relied upon by the assessee. Under the circumstances, all these appeals are required to be remanded to the Tribunal to consider the addition made by the AO towards alleged bogus purchases\/sales and to take appropriate decision in accordance with law and on merits and after considering the decision of this Court in the case of CIT vs. President Industries 258 ITR 654.<\/p>\n

Read more ›<\/a><\/div>\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7338","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-high-court"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7338","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7338"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7338\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7338"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7338"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7338"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}